Plight of the Commons 17 Years of Wildlife Trafficking in Cambodia
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Biological Conservation 241 (2020) 108379 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Biological Conservation journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/biocon Plight of the commons: 17 years of wildlife trafficking in Cambodia T ⁎ Sarah Heinricha, , Joshua V. Rossb, Thomas N.E. Grayc, Steven Deleana, Nick Marxd, Phillip Casseya a School of Biological Sciences and Centre for Applied Conservation Science, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia b School of Mathematical Sciences, The University of Adelaide, SA 5005, Australia c Wildlife Alliance, 1441 Broadway, New York, NY 10013, USA d Wildlife Alliance, 86, St 123, Phnom Penh, Cambodia ABSTRACT Southeast Asia is a hub for wildlife trafficking. Since 2001, the Wildlife Rapid Rescue Team (WRRT), a multi-agency law enforcement unit under the authorityof Cambodian Forestry Administration, has operated in Cambodia to counteract wildlife trafficking. We have analysed confiscation records from the WRRTfor 2001–2018 to determine the compositional trends of trafficked species in Cambodia, and identify any detectable conservation gaps. Confiscations involved95% native species. Over 60% of all confiscated species were either: (i) not listed in CITES; (ii) listed as Least Concern on the IUCN Red List; and/or (iii)Commonunder the Cambodian Forestry Law. These common, and usually less appreciated, species in trade may face greater future threats through trafficking and thus require better protection. Birds had the most number of animals confiscated, and songbirds were particularly heavily trafficked. In terms of the number of incidents, reptiles werethemost confiscated Class. A small number of specific reptile species were consistently targeted, and particularly prominent was turtle and tortoise trafficking. Conversely, birds appeared to be trafficked opportunistically. Most bird species were only confiscated in a single year, and almost two thirds of all bird species werereplacedby different species each year. We show that Cambodia is contributing substantially to the bird trade and this may be an under-reported element of theAsiansongbird crisis. 1. Introduction species to be listed in CITES, from the time they are first identified by the IUCN as threatened by international trade, to the time they are Wildlife trafficking is a lucrative business, endangering thousands of listed in one of the CITES Appendices (Frank and Wilcove, 2019). This species and millions of individual animals and plants each year (Broad is too long for many species, especially lesser known ones, which need et al., 2002; Wyatt, 2013). Southeast Asia is a hub for wildlife traf- to be protected from trade and trafficking immediately, to prevent them ficking (Harrison et al., 2016; Nijman, 2010), and while most con- from extinction (Eaton et al., 2015). servation and enforcement efforts have focussed on large, charismatic Southeast Asia is a biodiversity hotspot where wildlife trade is a mammals, less is publicised about the many species of reptiles and major threat to many species (Sodhi et al., 2004). In all countries in the birds, and lesser known mammals in trafficking. Yet, the songbird trade region important information gaps exists on wildlife trade dynamics is contributing to ‘silencing the forests’ of Southeast Asia (Lee et al., (Sodhi et al., 2010). Here we present a case study for one of those 2016), and is a pressing conservation issue. Similarly, reptiles are countries. We investigate a unique dataset of wildlife confiscations in trafficked in the millions (Nijman and Shepherd, 2015), and smaller Cambodia, from 2001 to 2018, and analyse the compositional differ- mammals, such as pangolins, are being driven to extinction (Challender ences and temporal trends for key vertebrate taxa (birds, mammals and et al., 2014b). reptiles), which are heavily trafficked in the country. Species that are already, or may become, threatened by interna- Cambodia was ruled by the Khmer Rouge from 1975 to 1979, who tional trade can be listed in one of the three Appendices of CITES, the left behind a devastated country. Armed conflicts can be highly detri- Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild mental for wildlife (Dudley et al., 2002; Gray and Prum, 2012; Loucks Fauna and Flora. CITES listings do not always result in adequate pro- et al., 2009; McNeely, 2003). During the genocide, Cambodians in- tection of a species, but it is arguably the best existing tool to protect creasingly relied on wildlife for subsistence, to fulfil their basic needs species from overexploitation for international trade (Rivalan et al., for food and medicine (Martin and Phipps, 1996). After the disposition 2007). Recently, it was found that it takes an average of 10.3 years for of the Khmer Rouge, the country was heavily landmined, and weapons ⁎ Corresponding author at: University of Adelaide, School of Biological Sciences, Room G24b, Benham Building, 5005 Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (S. Heinrich). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2019.108379 Received 24 August 2019; Received in revised form 30 October 2019; Accepted 4 December 2019 0006-3207/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. S. Heinrich, et al. Biological Conservation 241 (2020) 108379 were readily available, leading to a further decline in wildlife (Loucks www.catalogueoflife.org/annual-checklist/2018/). Data for the na- et al., 2009; Martin and Phipps, 1996). The (illegal) use of wildlife tional protection status of species in Cambodia (species classified as products was and continues to be high, increasingly so with the facil- either Rare, Endangered, or Common according to the Law on Forestry itation of trade through the opening of borders to neighbouring coun- of 2002), were obtained from Annexes 1, 2 and 3 of Prakas No 020, tries in more recent times. Recent wildlife seizures suggest that Cam- PK.MAFF (Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries), dated 25 bodia may not only be a source, but also a transit country for different January 2007. Only animals classified to the species level are listed in species (EIA, 2018; Gray et al., 2017a). the Prakas, with the exception of the entire bat Order Chiroptera. As it Traditional Medicine (TM) has always been widely used in was unclear if this included all species of Chiroptera worldwide, or only Cambodia, and in many instances it was the only healthcare, especially a proportion of these, the Order listing was excluded, with the excep- for the rural poor (Ashwell and Walston, 2008); although this appears tion of single species of Chiroptera, which were listed separately in the to be changing now. Endangered and rare species are considered more Prakas. Data for IUCN status, as well as whether a species was native to potent in TM, and are thus highly coveted (Ashwell and Walston, 2008). Cambodia, were obtained from the IUCN Red List (www.iucnredlist. These rare and endangered species are usually priced higher than org), last accessed in November 2018. For reptile species not listed by common species, and can be unaffordable for most Cambodians the IUCN, their native status to Cambodia was obtained from the (Ashwell and Walston, 2008). Wealthier Cambodians commonly invest Reptile Database (www.reptile-database.org). We consolidated the in western medicine when they get sick, but they continue to use Tra- IUCN categories ‘critically endangered’, ‘endangered’, and ‘vulnerable’ ditional Khmer Medicine (TKM) in conjunction. It is believed that most to a single category ‘Threatened’, while species listed as ‘least concern’ rare and expensive animal ingredients are destined for international and ‘near threatened’ were consolidated into a single category ‘Lower markets, mostly in China, Thailand and Vietnam (Ashwell and Walston, Risk’. All other species were classified as ‘Not Listed’. It should be noted, 2008; Martin and Phipps, 1996). However, there are also threatened that some reptile species are about to change status on the IUCN Red species that are used in TKM and which continue to be used locally, List (see Rhodin et al. (2018)). The current CITES listing of a species such as serow (Capricornis spp.) or loris (Nycticebus spp.) (Gray et al., was obtained from the CITES website (checklist.cites.org). We con- 2017b; Starr et al., 2010). solidated the CITES categories into ‘Listed’, for species listed in Ap- Cambodia has been a Party to CITES since 1997, and is classified as pendix I, II, or III, and ‘Not Listed’, for species not listed in any Ap- a Category 1 country, meaning that the legislation in place generally pendix. All confiscated animals and their parts and derivatives were meets the requirements for the implementation of CITES (CITES, 2018). converted into ‘whole estimated animals’ (see Appendix S1 and Table Relevant laws for the trade and use of wildlife include: i) the Sub-decree S1 for further details). on International Trade in Endangered Animals and Plant Species from Law enforcement operations by the WRRT (on average 379 con- 2006 (the main legislation for the implementation of CITES); ii) the Law ducted per year; increasing through time) are planned and intelligence on Fisheries from 2006; iii) the Protected Area Law from 2008; and iv) driven. Intelligence is obtained from a 24/7 public wildlife trade hot- the Law on Forestry from 2002. Notably, wildlife trafficking is also a line (which is advertised widely throughout the country), a network of predicate crime under Cambodia's anti-money laundering laws, which confidential informants,